3 ms·
Not athenian democracy, because that had hierarchy inherent in it. But yes, we believe in Direct Democracy. >Direct democracy might work well for a city state
by JasonCannon 5y ago
Not athenian democracy, because that had hierarchy inherent in it. But yes, we believe in Direct Democracy.
>Direct democracy might work well for a city state where even poor citizens are independent land owners,
One of the principal beliefs of Anarchists is that property is theft[0]. So no one would be an independent land owner. Everyone would be equally involved and have equal rights as we would all be members of the Commune/Council/Community/Collective/Union/whatever term the community wants to use to describe their collective. I prefer either Commune or Union personally.
>But I'm not convinced it would work for a large nation where there are enough powerful bad actors that they can use marketing and patronage to get control of the political process.
A lot of people have this idea that Anarchism would break down at larger levels. And that's kind of true, but we have organizational techniques to avoid this. One such technique is the idea that you have your commune and it's you and your neighbors or coworkers (you can be in multiple communes) and it will be a small commune where everyone knows each other. This is the group that handles most of your day to day governance and issues. These communes will federate with other communes, and create a commune that are represented by a member of each member commune. These representatives would represent the will of their source commune in the larger federation, and can be instantly recallable if they start making power plays or decisions that the source commune doesn't agree with. There could be multiple levels of these federations, each keeping the group in session small (less than 80 people) but no one really being in a position of power or permanently having their job. Each commune that's part of the federation can choose how they choose their representative. Some may want the most charismatic person. Some may choose at random. Some may consider it a duty of the members of that commune and so it switches every few weeks. These representatives don't get special perks or privileges for being chosen. They just represent their federation and their commune in order to expedite the process.
Also, Anarchists do not believe in the concept of the City State, or the Nation. Borders are violent[1].
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_is_theft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property_is_theft!
[1] https://crimethinc.com/posters/borders-the-global-caste-system https://crimethinc.com/posters/borders-the-global-caste-syst...
- goatlover 5y ago> So no one would be an independent land owner. So nobody owns their home or vehicle? It's all shared property? > Also, Anarchists do not believe in the concept of the City State, or the Nation. Borders are violent[1]. What stops some communities from being violent? Various groups of pirates, marauders and bandits existed in the past. The Vikings were well known for it.
- JasonCannon 5y agoYou would own the home you live in or the car you drive. Those would be your personal property. But you cannot own multiple homes that you rent out. Or a fleet of cars that you run a ride share company with. Thats private property and (private)property is theft. No one wants your toothbrush, but they do want the toothbrush factory >what about violent communities Anarchists are not liberals. We believe in armed Resistance and fighting back. Google the CNT-FIA, the EZLN, the YPG, and The Revolutionary Insurrectionary Army of Ukraine
- prox 5y agoThat is nice, until you get an enemy which is much more organized and wipes all the small unions out, or plays them against eachother.
- JasonCannon 5y agoLike I said to the sibling comment, look up the CNT-FAI, the EZLN, the YPG, and the Revolutionary Insurrectionary Army of Ukraine. There is nothing wrong with having the federation create a militia for the purpose of self defense and furthering the revolution
- prox 5y agoI will, though I must say it also sounds a lot like the ideas in Common Sense by Thomas Payne. I am also interested in the ideas by Nicholas Taleb on fractalistic societies. You familiar with his work?
- JasonCannon 5y agoPierre-Joseph Proudhon was the first person to use the term Anarchism to describe the political philosophy that we (anarchists) believe in. He was born the same year Thomas Payne died. So while Payne wouldn't have described himself as an Anarchist, we definitely recognize that he was in many ways espousing Anarchist philosophy. https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/william-m-van-der-weyde-thomas-paine-s-anarchism https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/william-m-van-der-we... >Nicholas Taleb I'm not familiar, and Google doesn't seem to bring anything up under his name or under fractalistic societies. Unless you mean Nassim Nicholas Taleb, the author of Black Swan? If so, I'm also not familiar with his work outside of knowing about that Book.
- prox 5y agoInteresting. Yeah, Nassim Nicholas Taleb, the author. Highly recommended to read Black Swan. Here is his essay (wip) : https://acataleptico.files.wordpress.com/2019/05/principia_politicasep2019.pdf https://acataleptico.files.wordpress.com/2019/05/principia_p...